All I'm saying is that it's normal for this to happen. That it happened three times in a row (all on the same day) in NYC is proof (or at least strong evidence) that I'm correct, is it not?
What position are you taking on this question? Is it your contention that what happened in NYC on 9/11, i.e., three modern, steel framed, skyscrapers collapsing perfectly into their own footprints as a result of catching fire, isn't normal??? What's your evidence for that extraordinary claim? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, do they not? Support your claim that what happened in NYC on 9/11 was abnormal for modern, steel framed, skyscrapers. If you cannot, then how is it unreasonable to expect the same for the London fire?
You can start with a completely different fire profile. And a completely different building.
It wouldn't surprise me if the final death toll doesn't rise to three figures...The Fire Service arrived on site within 6 minutes of the first call and yes they do actively fight the fire internally, although a spokesman said the initial priority was evacuating residents. The flats were fitted with a dry riser system to enable fire fighters to fight the fire internally on all floors....
The building had recently been reburbished to the tune of $15M but the residents had long been complaining it wasn't fire safe. It seems that sprinkler systems are not required in these sort of buildings and fire prevention is by passive design features built into the building. The original idea is that any fire that breaks out is contained by these features to a local area giving the fire service time to respond and deal.
Historically, there have been plenty of other fires in high rise flats in the UK and this concept has worked and the fires have been put out before they could breach and spread to any significant extent. The question is why did this fire spread so quickly? It looks like the plastic cladding that was applied during a recent face lift might be the main culpret. The specification for this and the associated insulation is apparently something like "Fire Resistant" rather than "Fire Proof"..The weather may also be partly to blame as it was fairly windy effectivly fanning the flames to higher temperatures.
A subcontractor who worked on the refurb gave an interview and stated that certain ducts and cavities between floors that should have been fire sealed were not, whether thats true or not, I don't know...
As already mentioned, the initial cause is reported to be a fridge that went on fire...
The owner apparently got out ok and its they who have given this initial cause of the fire. Again, whether its true or not is a different matter.
Given the high number of Muslims in the flats, I did wonder if this was a bomb making effort that had gone wrong?
A Public Enquiry has apparently been announced so hopefully we will get answers before this happens again else where...I think is incident will lead to a significant change in our fire codes...
On 9/11 I watched 3 buildings fall straight down into their footprints as perfectly as any demolition expert could pray for,...and they didn't have nearly as much fire going on as that building in England is exhibiting.
In fact,......I don't understand why people pay big money to demo a skyscraper. 9/11 showed that all one has to do is start a fire in one, let it burn for a while, and the whole sumbitch will come straight down as pretty as a picture.
On 9/11 I watched 3 buildings fall straight down into their footprints as perfectly as any demolition expert could pray for,...and they didn't have nearly as much fire going on as that building in England is exhibiting.
In fact,......I don't understand why people pay big money to demo a skyscraper. 9/11 showed that all one has to do is start a fire in one, let it burn for a while, and the whole sumbitch will come straight down as pretty as a picture.
On 9/11 I watched 3 buildings fall straight down into their footprints as perfectly as any demolition expert could pray for,...and they didn't have nearly as much fire going on as that building in England is exhibiting.
In fact,......I don't understand why people pay big money to demo a skyscraper. 9/11 showed that all one has to do is start a fire in one, let it burn for a while, and the whole sumbitch will come straight down as pretty as a picture.
They're just waiting for Larry Silverstein to tell them to pull it.
All I'm saying is that it's normal for this to happen. That it happened three times in a row (all on the same day) in NYC is proof (or at least strong evidence) that I'm correct, is it not?
What position are you taking on this question? Is it your contention that what happened in NYC on 9/11, i.e., three modern, steel framed, skyscrapers collapsing perfectly into their own footprints as a result of catching fire, isn't normal??? What's your evidence for that extraordinary claim? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, do they not? Support your claim that what happened in NYC on 9/11 was abnormal for modern, steel framed, skyscrapers. If you cannot, then how is it unreasonable to expect the same for the London fire?
TRH, really no need to peg the KOTY meter again, you're it for life! But I feel compelled to bitchslap you (again). The World Towers were of an innovative design, whose "skeleton" structure was unique, unlike that building in England th JP Fuel burns extremely hot, especially several hundred thousand gallons delivered at close to 250 kts in a "vessel" (airplane) with a gross weight exceeding 300 thousand pounds. The impact and high temp blowtorch effect in essence melted the steel as fuel on fire cascaded through the interior of the building. There are more studies out there on this that if you weren't so fuggin' stoopid, conspiracy consumed moron, you might get a clue
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
The World Towers were of an innovative design, whose "skeleton" structure was unique,
Explain it in detail, please.
More detail that you can handle, or do you have a structural engineering or thermal dynamics degree.. This is a serious study, no kook-fringe conspiracy BS.
The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
What experience do you have that allows you to claim that the article is accurate?
Also,..what caused the 3rd building to collapse? (World Trade Center Bldg. 7.)
It looks a bit suspicious to me.
In fact, it's about the prettiest controlled demolition I've ever seen. Whoever did it should be proud of their handiwork. They're some serious professionals.
As was already mentioned, any pressurized (and those that aren't pressurized but has liquid plus space) vessel can "explode" when heated. This is called a BLEVE and there are many interesting videos of such events. I've seen them ranging from aerosol cans and vehicle struts on up to 40 lbs propane cylinders and water heaters. The latter have been sent 30 feet into the air through 2 floors, a ceiling, and the roof so there was plenty of energy provided by the water left in the heater.
The "exploding" pressure system only drew attention to the problem, it wasn't the cause of the fire.
As for the material covering the building, that is too difficult to tell on the information available. It is possible that the material was rated as "fire resistant" but that does not mean "fire proof". The material could also have degraded through exposure to the elements or lack of maintenance. Once this occurs, the possibility of the material catching fire increases.
As for the sprinklers not working, that is to be expected for a fire that spreads from the outside in. Sprinklers are set up to control a fire starting in the open spaces inside a building and would not even trip until the fire burned into the building. By the time that occurred, the fire would too large to control, even if the sprinklers could hit the flames.
And if only the common areas such as hallways were the sprinkled areas, and not the individual units which is not uncommon in retrofits in this country, a fire in an apartment can spread easily. The same can be said if the fridge was blocking the fire from the sprinkler. If the fridge was near an open window, the fire would spread that direction and could spread to the outside before heat built to the point of setting off a sprinkler head.
This is a horrific tragedy and prayers go out to all affected. Hopefully, what is learned will prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.
Well you apparently know much more about these things than I and it's obvious you're an intelligent guy. Thanks for posting.
![[Linked Image]](http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr288/Bwnci/welsh-flag-large-anim.gif)
